Stankrauff v. De Voe, 33.
| Decision Date | 10 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 33.,33. |
| Citation | 275 N.W. 723,281 Mich. 660 |
| Parties | STANKRAUFF v. DE VOE. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Elizabeth Stankrauff against Eugene E. De Voe. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and remanded for new trial.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Oakland County; Frank L. Doty, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Kinnane & Manary, of Bay City, for appellant.
Alexander, McCaslin & Cholette, of Detroit, for appellee.
On January 26, 1933, about 15 miles south of Mt. Pleasant on US-27 and one-half mile south of the county line, defendant's tractor became disabled. The tractor was hauled away for repairs but a semitrailer and a four-wheeled trailer were left standing in the west lane of the highway.
The next morning, about 6:45 o'clock, one Pearce started south from Mt. Pleasant with plaintiff's husband riding in the front seat with him and plaintiff and another woman in the rear seat. The car ran into the trailer, injuring the plaintiff.
In action for damages, defendant had directed verdict and judgment on the ground that Pearce did not drive at such speed that he could stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
The evidence is in conflict in some respects, rather uncertain and indefinite in others, and Pearce was not sworn. But the testimony most favorable to the plaintiff includes the following facts:
The weather was foggy in spots and it was dark; with the lights of Pearce's car dimmed one could see ahead 70 feet or more; the Pearce car traveled at a speed consistently of about 35 miles per hour or less and could be stopped in 30 to 32 feet; about 8 miles out from Mt. Pleasant, at a gasoline station, Pearce applied the brakes and stopped the car without skidding; at a curve about a half mile from the trailers, he applied the brakes to slow down and did not skid; south of the curve he met another car and dimmed his lights; when 50 to 100 feet from the trailers, Pearce again applied his brakes and the car skidded to and struck the trailer; Pearce applied the brakes immediately when plaintiff, keeping watch ahead, first saw the trailer; both the plaintiff and her husband saw lights but their testimony is confusing and contradictory as to whether there were flares on the road north of the trailers; the husband thought the light he saw was about halfway between the trailer and the car when Pearce applied his brakes.
Another witness, Dr. Pullen, drove south on the road within an hour before the Pearce party; fearing that the road might be slippery he tested it with brakes about every mile and found it safe; he drove at a speed of 50 miles per hour; after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nevill v. Murdey
...she had seen the trailer and applied her brakes in time to stop. That was not the situation in the instant case. In Stankrauff v. DeVoe, 281 Mich. 660, 275 N.W. 723, also relied on by plaintiff, the plaintiff's driver likerwise had seen the defendant's trailer in ample time and applied his ......
-
Jackson City Bank & Trust Co. v. Blair
...Use of National Regulator Co. v. Rosewarne, 247 Mich. 22, 225 N.W. 590; Morocco v. Lange, 266 Mich. 238, 253 N.W. 281; Stankrauff v. DeVoe, 281 Mich. 660, 275 N.W. 723; National Land Co. v. Ternes, 298 Mich. 455, 299 N.E. 144. The admission of testimony as to the description of the harveste......
-
Hautala v. Cochran, s. 39
...and that it would have been error had the trial court held him guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Stankrauff v. De Voe, 281 Mich. 660, 275 N.W. 723;Park v. Gaudio, 286 Mich. 133, 281 N.W. 565. Appellant contends there was error in the following extracts from the charge to......
- Orzechowski v. Kolodziejski